Not at all, I was just making it clear that your statement was patently wrong - courts often decide custody matters when both parties seek custody. They may deny a parent custody entirely and enforce it, or establish joint custody and enforce it. The example you gave is valid, but it doesn't have a thing to do with the point you made.
You keep dodging the issue. The point here is that no law is going to force a man to maintain a paternal relationship with a child not his own. The only thing it can do is force him to pay for another man's child against his will.
I'm not dodging anything. I have made my position clear and yes, you are right that a court can't make a man a good parent. It can use the force of law to make him a passable one, though, something you can't seem to absorb.
Man, I've seen everything now.
Y'all lawyers are nuts.
Which has nothing to do with the subject at hand, and wasn't even implied in the context of my statement. As I said, it was a complete non-sequiter. Either you were just looking for somethng to argue about, or you couldn't adequately refute the point so you changed the subject.
It can use the force of law to make him a passable one, though, something you can't seem to absorb.
If money is all you think it takes to make someone a "passable" parent, you really have some screwed up ideas.
Let's face it, your arguments about preserving the "relationship" are all a farce. Hopefully, if a man has developed a relationship with a child, he will not want to end it because he learns he is not the biological father. But if he does, no court can prevent it, and to try to require him to continue such a relationship will ultimately be harmful to the child. You know this, I'm sure.
This is all about one thing - money. You think somone should be required to support the child, and since the real father is not available, the duped husband will have to do. This is not for the emotional well-being of the child - any child would be better off with a loving step-father or no father at all than to have a man who has come to resent or even hate the child and the mother in their life.
Your problem is 1)you are an attorney, so you think the law can fix social issues; and 2) you are young and naive enough (emotionally if not chronologically) to think you know something about life. Your post are full of pseudo-compassion, but no real understanding.
As one poster previously said, if you really feel that it is better for an adult to "take the hit", as you put it, you should volutarily take on the responsibility of supporting some of these children. If the husband no longer wishes to be associated with them, you have just as much of a relationship; maybe more, since you "love the children", and obviously the husband doesn't.